User talk:Orchi/archive 2013

Hi Orchi My name is Jay Pfahl and I write www.orchidspecies.com and I have been able to amass quite a library. I do not know if you used Dunsterville to identify this species but Ramiro in his 2000 reedit of Dunsterville's same drawings came to the conclusion that the drawings of P guttata actually were of P cerina, which looking at Reichenbachs drawing on my site, at http://www.orchidspecies.com/orphotdir/periscerina.bmp, of P cerina, that the pinched apical lip has a erose margin towards the rear. I feel your photo shows this trait very well. If you have access to Dunsterville's drawing [P guttata = P cerina] it is even closer to yours as he affords many more angles. The photo by Gilberto Escobar on my site at http://www.orchidspecies.com/periguttata.htm was ided by Leslie Garay and I feel is correct for that species

Check out all my references listed at the bottom of each species page and get back to me what you think Thanks Jay

Hello Jay, sorry for my delay. I would ask a german expert of this genus, but he is in South America in the moment. Bye for now! Orchi (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jay, some days ago I was informed, that "my" expert in Munich says the same as you. His opinion: Peristeria guttata is a synonym of Peristeria cerina. I changed the name as you proposed. Thanks for your info and all the best for you for the new year. Very often I visit your phantastic page orchidspecies.com. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hei Orchi! I am intending to create all remaining Aerangis pages today, are you going to create them on wikispecies too? If so I'll leave the links on pt-wiki pages already. Cheers Dalton (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dalton,

first many thanks for your identifications of the wrong or not named plants. I would ask you next year to have a look at the category:Unidentified Orchidaceae; but you are more rapid than I can think.

I try to connect Wikipedia, commons and wikispecies. If you create the genus Aerangis in pt-wiki, I'll arrange the species in wikispecies as soon as possible.

Hi, I have looked at most of them and moved the ones I was more or less sure. I skept many genera that I am not much familiar with. Maybe when we work on these pt-wiki genera some of the names will show. Of course some photos there are useless and never will be identified. The unidentified Cattleya ones are good examples of this. Dalton (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, today I will upload a number of photos of Campylocentrum species. I tried to identify them the best I could, however this genus is in need of a compreehensive revision as yet. Please forgive me if I make any mistake (because I make them all the time) and feel free to call my atention to anything you may think I do wrong (I mean, not the small ones that I thank you for helping to correct as always). Kew is not really up to date with some changes, eventually they will. Any time I make statements different from what they have on-line, I will place a note (with references) on Campylocentrum species PT-wikipage. I always try to follow Kew as close as possible, and when I am sure they are wrong I ask Rafaël to change things there, however in this genus I haven't gone that deep as yet to feel so sure and will just base on what we have available from other contemporary researchers. Cheers Dalton (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, I see the new drive by you in WP. Here you are the scientist, and I'm the worker. I think we have a good teamwork. In commons and wikispecies I follow KEW also. There are to many differences in the nomenclature worldwide. In wikispecies I create the species of Campylocentrum; following your way in pt-WP. All the best. Orchi (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. .....just I see the following difference: KEW say: Campylocentrum ulei and MBG and other say: Campylocentrum ulaei . Here the original: [1]. Can you help?

As far as I see, the taxon is named after Ernst Heinrich Georg Ule, who collected one of the specimens (E.Ule 1628), the type?, in the state of Santa Catarina. We should check the code, but probably there is a rule, that a taxon name would be corrected according to the name of the person, to whom the species is dedicated. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the remark. I guess Kew is probably right to correct the original description by Cogn. (as ulaei) to ulei. Its first collector was "E. Ule". I am not sure of the latin termination rules here but I guess I'll follow Kew. Cheers. Dalton (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear orchi, as much as I write I am more and more convinced that Campylocentrum is in need of a complete revision. Now I guessed I had finished the brazilian species of terete leaves and went on to the group of flat leaves with short calcar and without hair on the ovarium. But Buuuuu! first one I get is C. intermedium. As I am mostly basing on Pabst and Cogniaux books I found this species belonging to flat leaves group in one and terete in another, therefore had to get the original description (which I haven't found as yet), so I decided to read Rolfes revision of 1903. Soon I came accross the info that C. sellowii (which I was convinced is a syn. of C. ornithorrhynchum despite kew does not say so) has NO leaves!!! So I went to the original description by Rchb.f. (very poor by the way) and got the following at the end: Sowohl Angraecum Poeppigii, als Sellowii unterscheiden sich von dem mir vorliegenden A. aphyllum Thouars durch geraden Sporn und kleinere Blitthe. I do not know German enough to be sure but I guess he implies sellowii has no leaves as he is comparing it to poeppigii and aphyllum right? Thanks for your help. Dalton (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, I try to translate the sence of the german phrase of Reichenbach. (with my small english knowledges):

Angraecum poeppigii and Angraecum sellowi are different from Angraecum aphyllum Thouars. (Angraecum aphyllum is on my hand).

Angraecum poeppigii and Angraecum sellowi have a straight spur and smaller flowers as Angraecum aphyllum.

Unfortunately I do'nt have literature on Campylocentrum and never I saw a plant. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I came to the conclusion that Reichenbach got only a dead plant of C. sellowii, without leaves, therefore the mistake. Anyway so far I believe C. sellowii is a syn of C. ornithorrhynchum but that I'll leave this to check later, with more info. Dalton (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, would you please change all photos I sent as C. pauloensis to C. neglectum (rename, cats., etc)? I was checking new info I got and I guess description of those photos fit better in C. neglectum. Sorry for the confusion. Later I'll upload a real C. pauloensis. Thanks a lot for cleaning my mistakes. Cheers Dalton (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the only photo of the real Campylocentrum pauloensis. The only photo to remain under this name. Thank you. By the way, I wish you a much happy new year!

Dear Dalton, I changed te name and hope, it is correct. Gratulation for your wonderful photos of these rare orchids. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchid, thanks a lot for all the support you give me checking my pages and adding things I forget. Well, I just came across this file under Acianthera pubescens (2 of them by the way). I am convinced it is Acianthera strupifolia, regardless of whom said the opposite. Thanks Dalton (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, I corrected the picture of the Curtis' Botanical Magazine. There it is described as: allied to Acianthera strupifolia. Kew says for this one of the three Pleurothallis picta the name Acianthera pubescens or Pleurothallis pubescens. But I know, you are the expert. By the way I red on another page of "your 20000 photos". (Much to do) :) . Cheers . Orchi (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, If I keep this slow pace (10 species a day) as I am with these Campylocentrum it will take about 7 years! Haha:) And it is even worse because I have some other photos of Campylocentrum species but the original descriptions (and syn. in Kew) are so odd that I am not even able to fit them into anything, on the other hand there are some photos that fit 2 or 3 species... well, lets wait for someone to revise Campylocentrum then we re-check the whole thing. I guess today I'll finish checking the info available on the sketches-pages of species and tomorrow will finish the genus Campilocentrum on pt-wiki page, so what will we do next? Oh, these 20K of photos are only of about 3.000 species so 22.000 species are still missing. Dalton (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@Dalton: You may be correct with your interpretation of this illustration, but it is in contradiction to Kew Checklist, which interprets the image and description in Curtis's Botanical Magazine as Acianthera pubescens - see here. So, maybe it would be a good idea to contact the people at Kew. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Rafaël (Kew) says he does not know for sure... The confusion with Acianthera pubescens is great. We can make it a variable species or have at least 3 different species in Brazil. It seems abroad the confusion is the same judging from the number of synonymes it has. Rolfe says on the original description, P. picta is from Mexico and we can't check the holotypus now. No certain conclusion is possible. There are cases in which something reportedly from Mexico finnaly happeneded to be from Brazil as possibly happens with Pths. brevifolia too (from personal communication with Luer). Anyways it is just a syn. so let's not bother, someone else will figure it out in the future. Cheers Dalton (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If Tropicos is correct, both the types of Pleurothallis picta Hook. ([2]) and of Pleurothallis pubescens Lindl. ([3]) (supposedly) came from Mexico and are deposited at Kew. I expect that also the type of Pleurothallis strupifolia Lindl., if still existing, would be in London - as Lindley types generally. Probably they put Pleurothallis picta Hook. into synonymy of Acianthera pubescens only ex loco, as A. strupifolia is not recorded outside of Brazil. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, that's what I think too. At last: Kew says that the info of P. picta Hook. being a syn. of Acianthera pubescens seems to come from Stevens, W. D., C. Ulloa Ulloa, A. Pool & O. M. Montiel Jarquin. 2001. Flora de Nicaragua. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: i–xlii. Luer, despite mentioning 19 syns. of Acinathera pubescens in his revision of non-brazilian Acianthera species (Feb 2004), did not include Pths. picta Hook. on the list. I have uploaded a number of photos of A. strupifolia and some A. pubescens - check them out on the categories - (with many names based on its syns. - all plants from Brazil. There are yet more varieties), however, I am not familiar with Mesoamerican morphology of A. pubescens. Cheers Dalton (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for these fantastic photos. I see, Acianthera pubescens is quite variable and it is difficult to recognise species limits. Cheers --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, would you please move back Caladenia pendens to C. chapmanii x C. polychroma? It seems Bernd, who took the photo, is sure about the id. I just though it was much closer to pendens (furthermore, for some reason it was under the CAT unidentified Caladenia). Sorry for the trouble. Thanks, Dalton (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, I'm about to finish the Caladenia species (despite still have to work on genus page text). I managed to find info on all species but a few described after 2006. When I finished, there were two species missing: Caladenia rigens & C. longii. You will find links to sources of following info in pt-wiki pages of C. verrucosa and C. gracilis.

According to Australian experts C. rigens is a syn. of C. verrucosa.

Now C. longii is more complicated:

Clem. & Jones think it is a syn of C. angustata and the second is a good species.

Kew places C. angustata as a syn. of C. gracilis and keeps C. longii.

So we are down one or two species... Cheers Dalton (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, just some minutes before I updated in commons and Wikispecies the newest Caladenis - Checklist of Kew with 267 species; with Caladenia rigens & Caladenia longii. We can make a redirect, if you agree with the Australians. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi unfortunately I don't know enough to have an opinion on these of my own. Have never seen them and based all my text on Jones book and other later descriptions. On Pt-wiki list I left them there with no link and placed an '= Syn.'. Further info is on the species pt-pages. It's hard to Kew to keep up-to-date with all info published. They got better and better but we never know. When I revised their info on Brazilian orchids years ago I found at least a hundred of mistakes that have been solved. Dalton (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, may you please check for the correct id of Nicholls in wk-spp? I guess Nicholls abreviation refers to William Henry Nicholls and not to Aubrey Gordon Nicholls. I have corrected the redirect and the page but not so sure. Thanks a lot. Dalton (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Carr is wrong also, should be a redirect to Cedric Errol Carr, will leave as it is though. Dalton (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, I built two disambiguation pages. For the "Orchid - Nicholls" and "Botanic - Carr" we should use the full name with the abbreviations in future. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, Thanks! Thanks for the upgranding on my account too. I moved Acinthera bohnkiana to try. I hope i didn't mess it up. Dalton (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Brand new photos from this morning! Have a nice day Dalton (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, such superb culture is possible in the native country only. Much thanks for the correct identification of the Specklinia glandulosa and the Acianthera luteola. I have some (5-8) old photos of unidentified plants of the Pleurothallidinae. Next time I'll upload them. I believe, you and your great knowlegde can help. Now I work with your newest pictures. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, do you think we can grab some photos from SOF? this is their disclaimer. When getting photos from the web I am not so sure exactly if we can on not. This would improve a lot the Aciantheras we have. If you think we can, I'll get the ones I don't have (also because they have some misslabled). Thanks Dalton (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dalton, in october 2012 I had contact with two experts in questions of SOF copyrights . I had a long and good telephone call with the Kustos of the SOF in Basel, Mr. Dr. Samuel Sprunger. For your question following result: The pictures on the homepage of the SOF have copyrights, when it is tagged with the copyright sign. The SOF has the licence of the authors only for the own homepage. We had to contact the authors of the pictures of the SOF homepage for uploading pictures on commons. I hope to contact the widow or sons of Dr. Senghas to obtain a permission to use the photos of Dr. Senghas here. I will not pose this wish by telephone. When I meet the sons on a meeting of orchid friends, I try my best. Now I see, that many photos in SOF homepage are given by „S. Manning“. Shall I ask Dr. Sprunger, whether he can give me the adress? Shall I ask further, whether you can give informations for correct identifications of the genus Acanthera?

To use such pictures we had to obtain an OTRS permission for Wikipedia. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, I have seen many of S. Manning but none of the ones I saw were the ones I wanted. I did want the ones of Chirons. I know him and actually last time he was here we (and many other friends) went out for a pizza, however, we are not really close so I'd rather not ask him. Regarding Senghas' sons, if they are like their father, I am sure they will give permission right away. Senghas was a very fine man. We have been e-mailing each other a couple of years before his death. Very polite, a great man.

Now, the definition of Acianthera... it is a lange and variable genus and it is not easy to make it short. Well, it comprises the Pleurothallis species that have connate lateral sepals, the synsepal, (but other Pleurothallis have them too, like the Acronia group, etc.), the Acianthera flowers do not open much and they hardly are over 1 cm long. The inflorescence may have 1 to many flowers but the inflorescence is always thick and succulent and not thin "hair-like" (as most of the Pabstiella group) and the inflorescence is mostly straight (not changing directions after every flower as the group Effusiella of Pabstiella). The flowers also are thick in more than 95% of the species, being slightly verrucose or pubescent (exception is the Arthrosia section were they may be translucent). Almost always the flowers are simultaneous or in very fast succession. Small or large, the plants use to be robust and thick. Luer uses also the annulus in the ramicaul as a main feature to diferentiate several Pleurothallids genera. Acianthera don't have them, Anathallis does.

Dear Dalton, I can only say the same about Dr. Senghas. First I met him nearly forty years ago in the botanical garden Heidelberg. Often I visited his lectures about orchids in the DOG.

With your help I become not an expert, but a friend of Acianthera :-) Thanks. Orchi (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, there are several of Acianthera pubescens but varieties that probably are not from Brazil; and 3 of A. luteola. Specklinia tribuloides seems right. I hope all ids are right because I don't usually see many of these foreigners and am not so sure there is not something similar out there but with diferent names. Anyway, I'll place Cats on them all. Dalton (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The other ones, there are two of Pleurothallis section Acronia, and the rest I don't have by memory, therefore will name them when I get down to their genera. I am sure I have all their names here on the books.

Well, Acianthera is taking a long time isn't it? The trouble is that there are so many pooly described and several that have been described and never seen again. I am trying to solve as many as I can. For instance> A. pavimentata has to be a syn of A. saurocephala. > P. dichroa either is not brazilian and then it is a syn of A. tikalensis, or it is Brazilian and is a syn. of A strupifolia> P. inaequalis is a mystery that can only be solved seing the type... A. antennata is = A. gracilisepala. > A. variegata is = A. bicornuta. Etc... I have sent some changes to Raphael in Kew, other species will leave as they are because I can't be sure without seing the type, however I am placing all these info on pt-wiki pages.Dalton (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Das ist rechts, im Fleisch und Blut. Wunderbar. Jetzt haben wir nur fehlen 120 Arten haha! Danke! By the way, I have uploaded all Acianthera species I have photos now and only will finish the other species articles with synonyms but no text. I have writen at the end of the article a list of all (26) species of Brasil that have identification problems and are likely to change in the future either because they are true names of any other or are syns., have yet to be found again, or someone described someting lately that I consider to be a syn. I guess in 6 months, after Cássio publishes the corrections on his article, then will finnish it. Regarding the sections, I would guess the placements of the non-Brazilian species but won't do that as correcting mistakes later will be twice the work of writing from the beguining. I think then will go back to Caladenia group. It is much easier to write about something you know nothing than about something you know well... ahah Cheers! Dalton (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

...thanks for your infos! I'll wait for the corrections of Cássio and than I fill Acianthera with the sectiones. Yesterday I obtained the newest periodical of the german orchid society (DOG) with a very good article of Acianthera aphthosa by Dr. Wolfgang Rysy. He is specialist for Bulbophyllum and european orchids. Same days ago we wrote (Photos in SOF) about Mr. Steve Manning. During an orchid congress in march I hope to see him. He gives a lecture about Plurothallis and relatives. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, they have merged and sepatated these species a number of times grouping them in several ways... the synonyms got from here to there and then come back in a different grouping... For me this implyes they are so similar that a number much bigger of them should be synonyms. Anyways, if one has to have them separated, the ones I have uploaded should be under Heterotaxis brasiliensis (and not under H. crassifolia or H. sessilis) because that's the plant that exists and was described for the southeast coast of Brazil. As this is a very common species, and no one really cares about it because it is a large and fast growing plant which hiddens its small dull flowers, no one would botter to bring a plant from Amazon to São Paulo as all look the same and are veeeeeeery hard to sell. When you have one, you married her for life. Mine is huge and takes a lot of space where I could have someting much more interesting. I have cut it in several pots but my friends don't want it, even as a gift. Will you fix all links to H. brasiliensis for me, please? Sure in a couple of years we will have to re-fix the whole thing again....oh Well! Cheers Dalton (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orchi, I shot this flower at home three days ago and searched on Google and on Wikipedia to know what kind of cybidium it is. Here is the link : [[4]]. I asked for its binomial name on the special Wikipedia page dedicated to the identification of plants. I was told to ask you. If you can answer me, thanks in advance. Best regards. --JLPC (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello JLPC, I think you categorized your picture correct as Cymbidium - cultivar. One of the parents seem to be Cymbidium iridioides. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for identifying File:Behring_orchid.jpg as a duplicate. I'm quite puzzled at how this happened as I cannot find any difference between the files, though I ran a duplicate check before uploading (using the standard API). Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open, just in case this is more than a bit of a technical glitch. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

...searching the botanical name, I saw that the picture was the same with the same size. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, Thank you for putting my photo File:Laelia x cattleya aurantiaca.jpgin the right category: Guarianthe aurantiaca. There is an orchid exhibtion in Paris where I have taken many photos. Unforturnately I don't know the names of the orchids. As often as possible I give the name I have seen on the plaque next to the flower. But it happens quite often that it is difficult to tell which plaque for which flower. That is to say that my mistakes are in good faith. I admire your awesome knowledge of orchids. Best regards. Dinkum (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hio o/ When naming cats such as an infloresc. cat for a species, please use () instead of - and singular instead of plural in case of ()-enclosed additions as it's the established way. So, Lilium martagon (inflorescence) or Lilium martagon inflorescences. --Pitke (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Réginald, I would be happy to find orchids in my lawn also, but I can not say, whether it is surely Dactylorhiza fuchsii. Is Dactylorhiza fuchsii or D. majalis in the surroundings? Care for this little orchid, perhaps it will flower in the next year(s). Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Orchi,

So far I know, there is no other Dactylorhiza in the direct surrounding. There are well D. fuchsii and D. majalis in the forest some 4 km from my home...

About 10 years ago I had well got three Dactylorhiza maculata (sic) as a present from the nursery Jan Spruyt-Van der Jeugd, which I had planted on the edge of my pond. So far I remember, they were not Dactylorhiza maculata, but Dactylorhiza fuchsii. The first year I got flowers, the second year only leaf, thereafter nothing more...

The other spontaneous orchid I have on three or four places in my garden is the common Epipactis helleborine.

I will for sure take care for the seedling and, if it is flowering in the future, I will let you know which species it is!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

The reasons for my doing:
We have in commons a very valuable botanical and zoological taxonomic system.
There are many new non-taxonomic categories for user with other interests (e.g. themes collected in "Tulips miscellaneous group").
There is the scientific name Tulipa, used for the botanical part.
There is the no-scientific name "tulips", used for the non-botanical part. Orchi (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hello Orchi, could you please see photos in Category:Galovské lúky? I think in the most of photos are plants Dactylorhiza sambucina but I am not sure. I have taken this photos a few days ago in nature reserve Galovské lúky in the Czech Republic. I am sorry of my bad English. Thank you. --Miďonek (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Miďonek, thanks for the very fine pictures of Dactylorhiza sambucina. You visited a wonderful habitat! Your English is not complicated, but very clear and understandable. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orchi; I was pleased to see this edit.[6] My view is that this sort of thing is best done on the gallery page. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk) 23:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Walter, I deleted this category using the non existent name "Campanula rotundiflora" for the correct name "Campanula rotundifolia". These images were taken of the Category Campanula rotundifolia and deleted there. I will create a new subcategory for the flowers. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The correct way and less work would have been to rename the cat, not empty and remove it.--Pitke (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

...just I created the new category "Campanula rotundifolia (flowers)" in the form as you wanted. I hope, thats is o.k. Orchi (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for jumping on you, I was hasty to read my watchlist and assumed the cat name starting with "Campanula rotun..." would be the main cat. Many of the previously "Close-ups of..." pics indeed weren't much of close-ups anyways. --Pitke (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I agree that it is better to use Template:Move for this purpose. It makes it easier for others to understand your work, too. --Walter Siegmund(talk) 15:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The last two week we ware in the French Alps (Oisans), were I have photographed a lot of plants, including the rare Colchicum alpinum and Eritrichium nanum, and several orchids. I met among others red, pink and white forms of Nigritella nigra, I will now uploading.

Neotinea ustulata: I think your photos shows not the var. aestivalis. The stems of this varity are very long and the inflorescences are loose. Please have a look to the pictures of Mg-k and BerndH here: Neotinea ustulata var. aestivalis

The flowering time of your plants is very late. ( I will contact BerndH. He knows late Neotinea in the alps.)

Also I ask Bernd, to identify your diverse Nigritella nigra: I think these plants could be Nigritella rhellicanii.

I'll just pop in to add my two bits: our Phals have loved it when we switched our watering from from tap water to rain water / melted snow. It's more acidic it seems and I'll suppose that good quality river or lake water would also do nicely. When gathering rain water, wait for 30 minutes before setting up the bucket to allow the rooftop to wash out. For the last 10 years or so nearly all of our Phals have flowered once a year if not even more. --Pitke (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both of you. Of course, there are orchids in all climate zones, but the orchids on sale in western europe are a smaller choice. I tell ur tricks somebody else. Thank you very much --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Salu Liné1, new and a good way is the possibility of connection of Commons galleries and categories with Wikidata. Also the link to wikispecies. (You see my test here e.g.: Platanthera
Now my question to the expert: Do you see any way to copy the wikilinks for the vernacular names from Wikidata? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting feature: we will get rid of interwiki that were boring.

But: It will reintroduce a war between categories and galleries: If you look at Category:Platanthera you will see 5 interwiki-links when there is 23 for Platanthera.

For your question, I am trying to modify {{VN}} (more precisely a temporare clone {{VN2}}) to retrieve automatically the vernaculare names with their link.

But I failed to find the wikipedia syntax {{#property:de}} is not working.

I've in ignorance of PACMAD this taxon seen not below, but above of the family. Pardon! Whether we should keep this taxon can I not say. Orchi (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just seen this linked from Liné's talk page. I'd be in favour of not using clades as categories; wait until formal ranked Linnaean names have been coined for them. Very few people know the clade names, which makes working down through the tree from Category:Poaceae to a particular genus or species is a nightmare of choices for the vast majority of users. - MPF (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Especially for this clade, the name has been changed several times. First it was "PACC clade" (Panicoideae, Arundinoideae, Chloridoideae, Centothecoideae), later it was "PACCAD clade" and "PACCMAD clade", after Aristidoideae, Danthonioideae, and Micrairoideae had been added, and finally it lost the C standing for Centothecoideae. What else will happen to this clade? I don't think it's a good idea to use it in the category tree. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Franz Xaver, thank you very much, that you have brought your professional knowledge and opinion on the subject. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

How are you, still doing a lot of good work on the orchids pages! I think that this winter I'll do some work again on the Flora Brasiliensis, I never really finished it (had a very nice affair with butterfly illustrations....). I started today with plate 102, added a cat. and a gallery Stelis sarcopetala. Can you have a look at my edits and comment on anything that isn't right or can be better? It's some time ago, and I have to get used to the orchid-editing again.
Mit herzlichen Grüßen,Maarten Sepp (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Maarten,

I'm very glad to see you back in our orchids! It's very a good idea to complete the wonderful "Flora Brasiliensis". Sometimes I had a look on your "..affair with butterfly illustrations...." and hoped on your further activities in orchids. Unfortunately there are not many peaple in this section. In the meantime some changes and facilitations are built here. Wikidata is a good way for automatic wikilinks; Wikispecies is with help of User:Andyboorman complete in all genera of orchids. User:Linè was very hard-working and effective in building automatic vernacular names. I hope it's you right if I make small actuel changes as examples.

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato(talk) 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have renamed some Wikimedia files I had incorrectly named. They are now Satyrium erectum. Have updated the S. erectum and S. membranaceum WP article and edited the Satyrium (plant) file in WP. I understood that you might like to know. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello JonRichfield, I thank yo very much for your friendly information. I am pleased to see the wonderful pictures of you and user:Andrew massyn from South Africa. The identification of orchids is often not easy. I put your photos here Satyrium erectum and here Satyrium erectum. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)